On Apr 4, 2007, at 10:43 PM, Jerone Young wrote:
On Wed, 2007-04-04 at 08:57 -0400, Jimi Xenidis wrote:
hmm, how did this ever work?!
I your problem with a direct caller of __xchg() or is this thru the
macro xchg()?
The caller is in common/domain.c @ line 310:
/* Already dying? Then bail.
On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 16:10 -0700, Xen patchbot-unstable wrote:
# HG changeset patch
# User [EMAIL PROTECTED]
# Date 1175177666 -3600
# Node ID 4b13fc910acf0019c27cbae35181433b381e88d1
# Parent 31f20aaac8188bc1366b80e55e47b328db425180
xen: Split domain_flags into discrete first-class fields
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 11:23 -0400, Jimi Xenidis wrote:
On Apr 4, 2007, at 10:43 PM, Jerone Young wrote:
On Wed, 2007-04-04 at 08:57 -0400, Jimi Xenidis wrote:
hmm, how did this ever work?!
I your problem with a direct caller of __xchg() or is this thru the
macro xchg()?
The caller
On 5/4/07 16:56, Keir Fraser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/4/07 16:44, Hollis Blanchard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is an interface problem: using the interface in a way that works on
x86 fails on other architectures. PLEASE let's redefine the interface to
prevent this from happening. In
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 16:56 +0100, Keir Fraser wrote:
On 5/4/07 16:44, Hollis Blanchard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is an interface problem: using the interface in a way that works on
x86 fails on other architectures. PLEASE let's redefine the interface to
prevent this from happening.
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 17:59 +0100, Keir Fraser wrote:
On 5/4/07 16:56, Keir Fraser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/4/07 16:44, Hollis Blanchard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is an interface problem: using the interface in a way that works on
x86 fails on other architectures. PLEASE let's
On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 12:16:38PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
While the header is only being used by PPC, aren't these two macros broken,
i.e. shouldn't the match the ia64 variants in using the structure base address
from the handle and passing just _off as last argument to xencomm_copy_...()?
